Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) has responded to a subpoena request from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked select committee investigating the events of January 6, 2021, by saying he will not cooperate voluntarily unless the committee can justify its reasons for calling for his testimony.
Lawyers for Rep. Biggs objected to the lack of specificity in the subpoena request. They also raised issues about the constitutional authority for issuing the subpoena to a fellow member of the House.
In a letter to committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, Biggs’ lawyers said they wished to “lodge objections” to the subpoena’s sufficiency on procedural and substantive grounds. They also asked for additional information about the reasoning supporting the subpoena and the scope of the testimony the committee expects to obtain from Rep. Biggs.
The letter also points out that the committee is taking an unprecedented step in issuing subpoenas for congressional testimony to other sitting members of Congress.
Biggs’ attorneys also raise privilege issues in their letter. They argue that members of Congress are protected by immunity against testifying about their work and speech pursuant to the Constitution when acting in their legislative capacity.
Pelosi’s committee has also issued subpoenas for Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Reps. Scott Perry (R-PA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Mo Brooks (R-AL) claimed that they all had some level of involvement in what Democrats and the corporate media have generally described euphemistically as the “insurrection.”
Biggs also challenges the validity of any acts of the January 6 committee because it was not constituted according to the House resolution that created it. That resolution specifically requires the committee to have 13 members although it only has nine.
The letter also objects to the process used in selecting members for the committee, since Pelosi hand-picked every member. Pelosi blocked two of the picks suggested by McCarthy, and he responded by pulling all of his nominations.
Rep. Perry has also objected to being subpoenaed, claiming the committee in its entirety is a “kangaroo court.”
A spokesman for the January 6 committee declined to provide a press comment on Sunday, referring only to an earlier statement claiming that courts have already upheld the validity of the committee. That statement declared refusal to cooperate with the committee’s subpoenas as an “assault on the rule of law.”